The Guardian submitted the following questions relating to Coulson's vetting to Downing Street on Tuesday night. The responses received from a No 10 spokesman, as well as the Guardian's replies, are published below.

Guardian questions:

1. While working in Downing Street, did Andy Coulson at any time have unsupervised access to information designated Top Secret or above?

5. Did Andy Coulson see documents or attend briefings about the terror incident at East Midlands airport in October 2010 for which he did not have appropriate security clearance?

6. Did Andy Coulson take part in any briefings related to US warnings of Mumbai-style commando attacks in September, when intelligence sources said they had uncovered the early stages of an al-Qaida plot to carry out co-ordinated attacks in the UK, France and Germany?

8. Were White House or State Department officials informed that Andy Coulson was not DV ["developed vetting"] vetted when he accompanied David Cameron on his visit to Washington in July 2010? Did he attend any part of Cameron's meeting with President Obama?

9. Did Andy Coulson attend the prime minister's meeting with General Petraeus in Downing Street in October or receive briefings based on it?

10. Did Andy Coulson attend any meeting between the prime minister and Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, at Chequers in August, when intelligence or military matters were discussed, for which he did not have security clearance?

11. Did Andy Coulson attend any meetings between the prime minister and other Nato leaders in Lisbon in November when intelligence or military matters were discussed for which he did not have security clearance?

12. Which officials or ministers were informed of Jeremy Heywood's decision in May 2010 not to subject Andy Coulson to developed vetting?

13. One of the reasons given for not subjecting Andy Coulson to developed vetting was cost. Is it correct that the cost of developed vetting to No 10 is £500?

14. We understand that the company that screened Andy Coulson on behalf of the Conservative party in 2007 was Control Risks Screening. Was Andy Coulson subjected to the firm's "standard" check (at a cost of £150.40) or the "express" check (£145.70)?

Downing Street spokesman's response:

These queries seem to misunderstand the nature of vetting - which I have spent some time explaining to you.‬It would be useful for you to look at Gus O'Donnell's recent letter to Ivan Lewis to help you more.‬‪ ‬‪

Andy Coulson was SC cleared, which allowed him access to secret papers. Developed vetting is not an employability test, it is about access to papers. It is required for those who need frequent access to the highest classification of material. This is a small minority and is not a standard vetting even for special advisers and senior officials in Downing Street.‬‪ ‬‪

In Andy Coulson's case, there is no suggestion he was sent papers incorrectly. Nor, as the PM has said, have there been complaints or assertions that he broke the rules in his employment at Downing Street.‬‪ ‬‪

Gus O'Donnell was clear in his letter that following the incident at East Midlands airport it was decided that Andy Coulson should undergo DV. This was due to the importance of communications in handling specific terrorist incidents.

This process was not completed.

Gus points out that his resignation had nothing to do with this process. ‬‪ ‬‪

We have already been clear with you why a decision was taken not to DV Andy Coulson in May 2010 (and the subsequent change to that decision by the Downing Street Permanent Secretary in November 2010).‬‪

I don't intend to go into further detailed questions. To repeat, vetting is about access to paperwork, not meetings and I think the explanation above, the Cabinet Secretary's letters and assurances set out the facts well.

UPDATE: On Wednesday evening the Guardian sent the following reply to Downing St:

Thank you for your response which, you'll be aware, doesn't answer a single one of the 14 questions we submitted.

I'm a little bemused by your assertion that "vetting is about access to paperwork, not meetings", particularly given that, in its initial response to the Guardian's enquiries on this issue, the Cabinet Office stated that one of the reasons Mr Coulson did not require Direct Vetting was that he did not attend cabinet, Cobra or national security council meetings.

As I understand it, officials and advisors without high level security clearance are regularly excluded from discussions about highly sensitive issues including intelligence. That would seem to suggest that the level to which an individual is vetted is highly relevant to which meetings they are allowed to attend. I also understand that meetings such as National Security Council sessions are typically based on highly classified papers circulated to participants, so that even if an attendee did not receive the papers he or she would be exposed to the information in them.

I'd be most grateful if you would reconsider your refusal to respond to the specific issues we have put to you. In particular could you address whether Andy Coulson has attended any NSC meetings? We understand that he did this on at least one occasion.

You also don't offer any reason in your response for not addressing our questions relating to which officials or ministers were informed of the decision not to have Andy Coulson DV vetted, the cost of DV vetting, and the commercial screening process which Mr Coulson underwent on joining the Conservative Party.

Finally, could you clarify whether your assertion that "there is no suggestion he was sent papers incorrectly" should be interpreted as a denial that, per our first question, Andy Coulson at any time had unsupervised access to information designated Top Secret or above?

As you know the Guardian has regularly applauded the government for its ambition to be "the most open and transparent government in the world", and for the significant steps it has taken in several areas towards achieving this aim. I hope on reflection you will respond to our questions in the same spirit of transparency.

UPDATE: Response from No 10 Downing Street received 3pm on Thursday

We feel you have already had comprehensive responses to your inquiries from No10 and the Cabinet Secretary.

Fundamentally, you seem to refuse to accept that there were good reasons, that had nothing to do with phone hacking, why a number of Special Advisors, including Andy Coulson, were not Develop Vetted in May 2010. We have explained the reasons to you in detail.

We have also explained why the Permanent Secretary at No 10 decided to reverse this decision in November 2010, following the East Midlands terror incident.

There is no suggestion that Andy Coulson, or anyone else, had access to the most secret papers. Nor is it the case that decisions were taken about his vetting status because he had resigned from the News of the World.

It is also important to note that No10 and the Government have careful and rigorous procedures in place to handle top secret material.

From the Guardian to No 10 Downing St, Thursday 6.30pm

Thank your for your reply which I note, once more, does not answer any one of the 14 questions we put to you on Tuesday evening.

I think our readers will be bemused, at best, by your refusal to address the issue of whether Andy Coulson attended any meetings at which highly classified information was discussed. More sceptical readers may conclude that you are reluctant to disclose information that could prove inconvenient in some way. In particular, readers will wonder why you are not willing directly to address the issue of whether Andy Coulson ever attended a meeting of the national security council.

I also note that you decline to deny that, as per our first question, Andy Coulson at any time had unsupervised access to information designated Top Secret or above. In place of your previous statement that "there is no suggestion he was sent papers incorrectly", you now state that "there is no suggestion that Andy Coulson, or anyone else, had access to the most secret papers". For the sake of clarity, could I ask again if you would confirm or deny whether Andy Coulson at any time had unsupervised access to information designated Top Secret or above?

You complain that we have refused to accept that there were "good reasons" why Andy Coulson was not DV vetted in May 2010 but I hope you'll appreciate that any scepticism is hardly likely to be allayed by your refusal to provide any of the details which might allow us to form a fuller picture of the issue. In particular, we are baffled by your unwillingness to disclose which officials or ministers were informed of the permanent secretary's decision not to vet Coulson to the highest level.

Can I once again point to the contradiction between the government's laudable commitment to transparency, and the rather evasive and obfuscatory responses you have given to our questions, and urge you to address them more directly.

Response from No 10 Downing Street received 6.51pm on Friday

I'm happy to refer you to our previous statements. They remind you that we have detailed why the Permanent Secretary decided not to have Andy Coulson and others Develop Vetted in May 2010 - and underline that No10 and the Government have careful and rigorous procedures to ensure secret material is handled appropriately.